Blog Roll

Congress mulls fix to Voting Rights Act ruling

Members of Congress of both parties showed some interest at hearing Wednesday in restoring a part of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court last month, but few specifics were offered by lawmakers or experts on how to change the law so it will meet muster with the justices.

Civil rights movement veteran Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and former House Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) came across from the House to a Senate Judiciary Committee session considering how to respond to the decision striking down the formula that dictated which states and localities had to submit voting changes for preclearance by the Justice Department or a federal court panel.

"In a democracy such as ours, the vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have," Lewis said.

"I did not expect my career to include a third reauthorization of the VRA, but I believe it is a necessary challenge," Sensenbrenner added.

However, the ranking Republican on the Senate committee said some Democrats were being too quick to fault GOP lawmakers for being unwilling to pass a new preclearance formula. Clearance of all voting changes—from polling place locations to new voter ID laws—was required in parts or all of 15 states before the Supreme Court ruling last month.

"Rather than blaming Republicans for blocking a bill that does not exist, the majority should bring forth a proposal for updating the coverage formula in a constitutional way," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said. "We could cover the whole country. We could identify jurisdictions engaging in discrimination in the 21st century and where section 2 is inadequate. There may be other options. I look forward to seeing what the majority ultimately proposes. I certainly understand why there is no proposal yet."

One expert who testified before the panel, former Reagan administration Justice Department official Michael Carvin, said he had doubts that Congress could fix the formula, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional because it appeared to be based on decades-old data about racial voting patterns and efforts to prevent minorities from voting.

"I don't know if they're remediable," Carvin said of the weaknesses the court pointed out. He said part of the Voting Rights Act that allows private lawsuits over allegedly discriminatory voting practices was sufficient to weed out any lingering discrimination.

"Section 2 is a very muscular provision," Carvin said. "Redistricting is not an underlawyered operation."

Other witnesses disagreed about the remaining provisions being adequate.

"Even with armies of lawyers, it's very hard to fix using existing tools such as Section 2," said Prof. Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School. He said that while statewide redistricting fights would be aggressively litigated, objectionable practices at the local level might go unpoliced.

"Section 2 alone is not sufficient....It is a cost prohibitive, after the fact policy," said Luz Urbaez Weinberg, a city commissioner from Aventura, Fla.

Queries from various senators about specific ideas to update the formula for preclearance were met with vague answers or pledges to work closely with Congress as it explores the possibilities.